NEED HELP FAST....16-35 or 17-40

[NJames73]

Hey guys......I need some quick advice.......I shoot weddings, Portraits.....all that good stuff.

I am buying a new setup within the next hour or so......should I get the 16-35 f/2.8 or the 17-40 f/4?

Price is no issue.......I want quality....Is it that noticable?



HELP FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nate

[rent]

if price is no issue, then definately the 16-35. you get one more stop for low light, plus 1 more mm for wider angle (1 mm is noticeable at the wide side).

-alex

[NJames73]

I guess I should have stated that I am using the 20d body.....

[cdhender]

I think you'll need the f/2.8 since you're doing weddings.

[NJames73]

Yeah I don't want to run into any issue with lighting....or lack there of............but you guys think there is that big of a difference in the 2 lenses?

nate

[drisley]

If price is no issue, get the 16-35L. It's simply the best wide angle lens there is.
Having an extra stop of light helps sometimes, plus you get a slightly brighter viewfinder, and probably better AF in low light with F2.8 lenses, especially on cameras like the 20D.
Additionally, some reviews like this one (http://www.markcho.com/albums/album189/cen_35mmf4_all.jpg)show the 16-35L to be significantly sharper (although other don't).
There isn't a BIG difference between the lenses (they are more alike than they are different) but there IS a difference.

[roanjohn]

Price is no issue??!!!??

Then its easy

16-35 f2.8 L

Trust me, if you get the 17-40, you'll always kick yourself in the a** when you see that motion blur cuz you didn't have a fast enough shutter speed.

Ro1

[csnudelman]

The best in focusing with the 20D only comes with a lens that is f/2.8 or faster.

Buy both, send them to me for testing and I will send you back the one I would miss the least.

[Dante King]

i vote for the 16-35 take a look at these. Sorry for the poor subjects, but its kinda late here with not much to shoot. These are from 35mm f/5 1/60 sec. first pic is a 100% crop of the second shot. Can you say RAZOR sharp?

[NJames73]

Very sharp crop.......by the way how do you like your Epson p2000

[Skip Souza]

You are paying twice the money for twice the light. Go toward the light. The 16-35 is definetly the way to go. The wife has one and it is awesome.
Oh yeah, I agonized over this very question and got the 16-35 for the wife. I have never regretted this decision.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Go with the 16-35 for sure! I have the 17-40L, and it's a fantastic lens. I absolutely love it, but the f/2.8 would definately be nice. I find the f/4 somewhat frustrating at times, but then again, wide angle lenses don't require very high shutter speeds as you can see in Dantes pictures shot at 1/60th. So, either work pretty well in low light, but the 16-35 would have faster, more accurate AF especially in low light due to it's f/2.8 max apeture. Since price is not a problem for you, just go with the 16-35 and don't look back.

[sixshot]

Just the obvious, but if money is no issue then go with the 16-35.

[Dante King]

if money is no issue, then lenses for everyone!

[DwightMcCann]

Clever, Dante ... and drinks all around!

[Dante King]

first drinks and then lenses are easier.

[DwightMcCann]

Then they'll have to be IS lenses!

[blue_max]

Both very capable lenses in the right hands. The 16-35 has the obvious extra trick up it's sleeve.

Commercially, don't mess about and get the best.

Graham

[martook]

Then they'll have to be IS lenses!

LOL! Well, since price wasn't an issue, that should be OK... :lol:

[steibeldj]

16-35 my vote. 16-17 and 35-40 little difference. f2.8 -> f4 big difference! You just have to have the bucks.